(CRI is proud to present a 3 part series titled Bodhi Sattva’s Hindutva. In this 2nd part, Aravindan Neelakandan explores Ambedkar’s critique of Hindusim, on his thoughts on the question of Pakistan, Vedic traditions and Varna System) Read Part 1 here

Dr.Ambedkar was an ethical pragmatist and a practical patriot. He realized that if Hindus remain disunited the future of nation was doomed. Hindus need to be united not momentarily in flashes of emotion or hours of crisis but in a sustained manner. His solution to achieve a sustained Hindu unity, both cultural and political, was to abolish caste system completely. But what was his perception of Hinduism itself?

The public psyche has been fed to saturation with his quotes highly critical of Hinduism and his statements denouncing Hinduism in no uncertain terms. ‘I was born a Hindu but will not die one’ is a statement that has been made so popular by a section of his followers. However when one goes through the writings of Dr.Ambedkar one finds that he has used the word ‘Hindu’ in two ways. In one level of association, the term refers to what he would call ‘Brahminical’ or Smrithi-based religious system that endorses at different levels birth-based discriminations. Unfortunately even today most of the traditional ‘Hindu’ heads fall in this category. Then he uses the term ‘Hindu’ in another meaning – to embrace all indigenous spiritual traditions of India. Here he too embraces the term.

How much did Baba Saheb Ambedkar love Hindus? Here is the authoritative statement from the good doctor himself. One can see here the soul of a Hindu Sanghatanist in rapture and anxiety. Rapture at the freedom which Hindus have obtained and anxiety because they might get it lost in linguistic feuds:

I was glad that India was separated from Pakistan. I was the philosopher, so to say, of Pakistan. I advocated partition because I felt that it was only by partition that Hindus would not only be independent but free. If India and Pakistan had remained united in one State Hindus though independent would have been at the mercy of the Muslims. A merely independent India would not have been a free India from the point of view of the Hindus. It would have been a Government of one country by two nations and of these two the Muslims without question would have been the ruling race notwithstanding Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh. When the partition took place I felt that God was willing to lift his curse and let India be one, great and prosperous.[i]

Why should Baba Saheb Ambedkar love a people whom elsewhere he had denounced completely? Why should the author of the ‘Riddles of Hinduism’ become euphoric about Hindus becoming free of Islamist threat? To find the answer one has to go through the writings of BabaSaheb deeply. Dr.Ambedkar had visualized Vedic community as an egalitarian one. His own study of Vedic literature led him to reject the Aryan race theory concocted by the British. He also discovered valuable insights that revealed to him the real nature of Shudras. In the ‘Preface’ to his monumental book ‘Who were the Shudras?’ Dr.Ambedkar expressed his thankfulness

… to the writer of Adhyaya LX of the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata. Whether it is Vyasa, Vaiashampayana, Suta, Lomaharshana or Bhrigu it is difficult to say. But whoever he was, he has rendered great service by giving a full description of Paijavana. If he had not described Paijavana as a Shudra, the clue to the origin of the Shudra would have been completely lost.[ii]

In a crucial passage he further noted in his ‘Preface’ as to whom this book (Who were the Shudras?) would actually appeal:

The only class of Hindus, who are likely to welcome the book are those who believe in the necessity and urgency of social reform. The fact that it is a problem which will certainly take a long time to solve and will call the efforts of many generations to come, is in their opinion, no justification for postponing the study of that problem. Even an ardent Hindu politician, if he is honest, will admit that the problems arising out of the malignant form of communalism, which is inherent in the Hindu social organization and which the politically minded Hindus desire to ignore or postpone, invariably return to plague, those very politicians at every turn. These problems are not the difficulties of the moment. They are our permanent difficulties, that is to say, difficulties of every moment. I am glad to know that such a class of Hindus exists. Small though they be, they are my mainstay and it is to them that I have addressed my argument.[iii]

Who were these minority Hindus on whom Ambedkar had such a tremendous faith? As seen earlier the only section of Hindus whom Dr. Ambedkar perceived as genuinely interested in erasing casteism and integrating Dalits with Hindu community were the Hindu nationalists. If we take this into consideration one will realize that the whole discourse of Dr. Ambedkar was aimed at the proponents of Hindutva. He was offering them a clear and holistic road map to realize the elusive goal of Hindu Sanghatan.

Discovering such valuable hints in reconstructing ancient Indian history, Dr.Ambedkar visualized a Vedic society where the Varna system was not birth-based but based on merit. Here we should remember that Dr.Ambedkar found even this Varna system absolutely meaningless in the current social context as this cannot be imposed on the society in any practical or meaningful way:

A close examination of this ideal has convinced me that as a system of social organization, Chaturvarnya is impracticable, harmful and has turned out to be a miserable failure. From a practical point of view, the system of Chaturvarnya raises several difficulties which its protagonists do not seem to have taken into account.[iv]

Yet Dr. Ambedkar, the Vedic historian, visualized a Vedic society based purely on merit and not on birth. It’s worth quoting Dr.Ambedkar’s view in detail here:

According to ancient tradition as embodied in the Puranas the period for which the Varna of a person was fixed by Manu and Saptarshi was a period of four years and was called Yug. At the end of the period of four years there occurred the Manwantar whereby every fourth year the list was revised. Under the revision some changed their old Varna, some retained it, some lost it and some gained it. The original system seems to have in contemplation the determination of the Varna of adults. It was not based on prior training or close scrutiny of bias and aptitude. Manu and Saptarshi was a sort of a Board of Interview which determined the Varna of a person from how he struck them at the interview. The determination of the Varna was done in a rough and tumble manner. This system seems to have gone into abeyance. A new system grew up in its place. It was known as the Gurukul system. The Gurukul was a school maintained by a Guru (teacher) also called Acharya (learned man). All children went to this Gurukul for their education. The period of education extended for twelve years. The child while at Gurukul was known as Bramhachari. After the period of education was over there was the Upanayan ceremony performed at the Gurukul by the Acharya. The Upanayan ceremony was the most important ceremony. It was a ceremony at which the Acharya determined the Varna of the student and sent him out in the world to perform the duties of that Varna. Upanayan by the Acharyas was the new method of determining Varna which came into vogue in place of method of determination by Manu and Saptarshi. The new method was undoubtedly superior to the old method. It retained the true feature of the old method namely that the Varna should be determined by a disinterested and independent body. But it added a new feature namely training as a pre-requisite for assignment of Varna. On the ground that training alone develops individual in the makeup of a person and the only safe way to determine the Varna of a person is to know his individuality, the addition of this new feature was undoubtedly a great improvement.[v]

BabaSaheb Ambedkar in his argument with Mahatma Gandhi points out that the Varna system is not only different from caste system but inherently opposed to it:

The principle underlying caste is fundamentally different from the principle underlying Varna. Not only are they fundamentally different but they are also fundamentally opposed. The former is based on worth. How are you going to compel people who have acquired a higher status based on birth without reference to their worth to vacate that status? How are you going to compel people to recognize the status due to a man in accordance with his worth, who is occupying a lower status based on his birth? For this you must first break up the caste system, in order to be able to establish the Varna system…. While I reject the Vedic Varnavyavastha for reasons given in the speech I must admit that the Vedic theory of Varna as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible and an inoffensive thing. It did not admit birth as a determining factor in fixing the place of an individual in society. It only recognized worth. The Mahatma’s view of Varna not only makes nonsense of the Vedic Varna but it makes it an abominable thing. Varna and Caste are two very different concepts. Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth-while Caste is based on the principle of each according to his birth. The two are as distinct as chalk is from cheese. In fact there is an antithesis between the two.[vi]

Dr.Ambedkar also rejected any revival of traditional Varna system also as attempted by Arya Samajists. It was not the principle of categorization based on worth that forms the basis of Varna system which Dr.Ambedkar rejected. He explained:

To me this Chaturvarnya with its old labels is utterly repellent and my whole being rebels against it….If new notions are to be inculcated in the minds of people it is necessary to give them new names. To continue the old name is to make the reform futile. To allow this Chaturvarnya, based on worth to be designated by such stinking labels of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions based on birth, is a snare.[vii]

As a seasoned historiographer Dr.Ambedkar sees throughout Indian history two fundamental movements: one of social emancipation and another of social stagnation. He sees the roots of both in larger Hindu culture itself and aligns himself with the movement for social emancipation. He sees Buddhism as the culmination of this emancipation movement. Social emancipation was not something new to Vedic civilization brought in by Buddhism. Rather Dr.Ambedkar sees Vedic period and its continuation as one in which women enjoyed educational rights:

That a woman was entitled to Upanayan is clear from the Atharva Veda where a girl is spoken of as being eligible for marriage having finished her Brahmacharya. From the Shrauta Sutras it is clear that women could repeat the Mantras of the Vedas and that women were taught to read the Vedas. Panini’s Ashtaadhyai bears testimony to the fact that women attended Gurukul and studied the various Shakhas of the Veda and became expert in Mimansa. Patanjali’s Maha Bhashya shows that women were teachers and taught Vedas to girl students. The stories of women entering into public discussions with men on most abstruse subjects of religion, philosophy and metaphysics are by no means few. The story of public disputation between Janaka and Sulbha, between Yajnavalkya and Gargi, between Yajnavalkya and Maitrei and between Shankaracharya and Vidyadhari shows that Indian women in pre-Manu’s time could rise to the highest pinnacle of learning and education.[viii]

Dr.Ambedkar further explains:

That at one time women were highly respected cannot be disputed. Among the Ratnis who played so prominent a part in coronation of the King in ancient India was queen and the King made her an offering as hid to the others. Not only the King elect did homage to the Queen he worshipped his other wives of lower castes. In the same way the King offers salutation after the coronation ceremony to the ladies of the chiefs of the Srenies (guilds). This is a very high position for women in any part of the World.[ix]

He sets the implementation of Manu Smrithi as the bench mark for the fall of Hindu women. To him this was the triumph of counter-revolution in India. The same Ambedkar, who completely rejected the inhuman dimensions of Manu Smrithi, demonstrated that the Smrithi tradition with diverse traditions it contained can be distilled to create a Hindu law that is just and democratic. Hindu Code Bill, he believed, shall be instrumental in molding Hindus into a unitary society based on the principles of liberty and equality. Talking about the Hindu Code Bill in 1950, he declared:

The present bill is progressive. This is an effort to try to have one civil law for all the citizens under the constitution of India. The law is based on the religious scriptures of the Hindus.[x]

Thus we see Baba Saheb Ambedkar advocating the formation of a Hindu society which has learnt its lessons from its past follies and tragedies, a Hindu society which is inclusive and universal and ready to make it assertive in the new global context of the battle of civilizations. That Baba Saheb Ambedkar opted for Buddhism in bitterness, as Hindu society stubbornly and foolishly refused to come out of the clutches of casteist vested interests donning the garbs of religious authority, was actually the failure of Hindu society and its leadership to realize the dangers it was facing and adapt itself to the new challenges. Yet all these factors could never diminish the love Dr.Ambedkar had for the nation as we will see next, how he constantly worried about the national security and made the interests of India the primary factor in all his equations.

Related posts

The problem here is that in his “Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India,” and “Riddles of Hinduism,” Ambedkar makes the exact opposite argument, portraying this very same ancient India as primitive and ignorant, a socially and culturally degenerate society plagued the worst of vices, justified by useless and corrupt scriptures. Rather than seeing Buddhism as the pinnacle of Hindu social emancipation, he sees its egalitarianism and compassion as antithetical to Hinduism, and therefore targeted and snuffed out in a Brahminical counter-revolution. Again, this seems like something out of the bigoted, anti-Brahminic ravings of Kancha Iiaiah or the similarly conspiratorial anti-Brahmin stereotype in the writings of the atheist site Nirmukta. I’m not sure how these positions can be reconciled with what Shri Neelakandan has written here.

Aravindan Neelakandan

Both in ‘Revolution and Counter-Revolution’, the case Dr.Ambedkar makes it clear that Vedic system was originally a democratic model with Varnas based on merit. He was bitter about forces of social stagnation which he termed as ‘Brahminism’. However he was confident that if Hindus put their mind to it sincerely they could annihilate social stagnation. For this he sees Upanishads as a possible source of authority: “you must give a new doctrinal basis to your Religion—a basis that will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, in short, with Democracy. I am no authority on the subject. But I am told that for such religious principles as will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity it may not be necessary for you to borrow from foreign sources and that you could draw for such principles on the Upanishads.” (Annihilation of Caste, 1944, p.52) Yes. Baba Saheb was bitter many times and had used harsh words. His ‘Riddles’ is nothing more than a pamphlet taunting Brahminical authority. Then Swami Dayananda of Arya Samaj too had made strong attacks against Puanic and Sikh Sampradayas in not so nice manner. However, taking Baba Saheb’s writings holistically we can see that he perceived Buddhism as a pinnacle of Hindu social emancipation. Proof for this comes in one of his later writings ‘Rise and Fall of Hindu women’ where the examples of high respect and freedom for women he gives are all what can be called ‘Brahminical’, and he would rightly call them Vedic and he sees thus Buddhism as a continuation of this and Smrithi-based religion as antithetical to this. In Kancha you find none of these perceptions and insights. With Kancha you find only hatred. He is not a Dalit. His anti-Brahmin stereotype is more in sync with Nazi caricaturing of Jews. Comparing a mediocre dishonest person like Kancha with a compassionate,patriotic genius like Ambedkar is the greatest insult we can do to Baba Saheb’s memory.

Sasank Isola

With all due respect, I’m afraid I can’t say that I’m fully convinced. As far as the Upanishads are concerned, Ambedkar disapproved of them.
In his “Philosophy of Hinduism,” he quotes Aldous Huxley’s “Evolution
and Ethics” where Huxley describes Upanishadic thought as “reducing
the human mind to that condition of impassive quasi-somnambulism, which,
but for its acknowledged holiness, might run the risk of being confounded
with idiocy.” Ambedkar actually cites quotes from the Vedas, Mahabharata, etc in his “Revolution and Counter-Revolution” as proof of the horrific degeneracy of Vedic culture during the Vedic period itself. So I’m not sure how you can see his making a distinction between the original meritocratic Vedic system and later casteism, because Ambedkar advocates throwing out the Vedas entirely for being vulgar, barbaric, and useless as far as social justice and equality are concerned. His “Riddles” doesn’t just rail against casteist social stratification, or “the Brahmins” (as though they are all one monolithic group of power hungry, greedy, callous, manipulative, bigoted individuals, an ironically casteist generalization if there ever was one) but also criticizes Vedic era personalities like Dasaratha, Rama, the Vanaras, Krishna, and the Pandavas, among others. He presents Vedic culture as characterized by alcoholism, gambling, incest, war, animal sacrifice, and bestiality, like the Ashvamedha sacrifice. He presents the Bhagavad Gita as logically absurd and philosophically puerile, in addition to advocating wanton slaughter and of course, casteism. Here, he clearly sees Hindu culture, history, and philosophy as inherently degenerate, which is why I don’t see how the more conciliatory and even laudatory attitude towards Hinduism that you present can mesh with this naked hostility. It’s almost as if two different sets of writings have been attributed to one individual. At least Dayananda was consistent; he scathingly criticized Jainism and Puranic Hinduism, but never backtracked and praised them either. At best, it seems like Ambedkar was wishy washy or opportunistic, presenting different viewpoints to different audiences. Or perhaps his views on Hinduism changed from being more conciliatory to more hostile during the course of his life. I am not blaming him for what he’s written, given that he had every right to be bitter. Nor am I dismissing him as a hate monger like Professor Ilaiah, or questioning his patriotism. I am merely pointing out that Ambedkar’s unashamed contempt for Hinduism can’t be airbrushed out to force fit him into the Hindutva mold. Savarkar, despite being an atheist, never expressed the kind of disgust for Hinduism that Ambedkar unabashedly did.

Aravindan Neelakandan

The mistake done by those who read Baba Saheb’s writings as one concrete statement is that they miss out the socio-contextual layer of meaning in those writings. Ambedkar’s ‘Riddles’ has to be seen as a reaction of callous heartlessness of Hindus in Kalaram Sathyagraha. It is a natural reaction. But what astonishes one is the ability of Baba Saheb to raise above that hatred and later read Vedic texts and arrive at the conclusion that negates Aryan Invasion/Race theory. Swami Dayananda was bitter about both Puranas and Upanishads. Ambedkar was bitter about the Karma Kand and mythologies and Smrithi based religion. But Hindutva is all these different streams of Indic perceptions and more. Mere rejection or even contempt of Vedic religion does not make one less Hindutva as Savarkar defines Hindu as even those who reject Vedic basis of life but accept India as their holy land. Perhaps Baba Saheb never openly spoke of India as a holyland but when it comes to protecting Hindus and Hindustan he is as patriotic as Veer Savarkar and that aspect should be understood despite his bitterness about Hindu religion controlled by orthodoxy.

http://twitter.com/MiztaGlib Subra

A huge assumption implicit in this series is that Ambedkar’s was a noble almost altruistic quest rather than that of a rational and self-promoting human. Regardless of what a person writes and says, ultimately in Hinduism it is actions and actions alone that drive a person’s priorities (as Gandhiji said). Unlike Gandhi’s activity where he tried to publicly and privately be the change he wanted to see, it’s may be a tough ask to similarly map Ambedkar’s actions (rather than mere paper-bound ideas), but who knows.

Sasank Isola

From what you have written, it seems as though Ambedkar’s contemptuous writings on Hinduism were merely a reaction to his frustration with Hindu orthodoxy. But there is a difference between being frustrated by a layer of blind dogma and superstition that has rusted over what would otherwise be a noble and profound religious tradition, and denying that this tradition ever had any sanctity whatsoever, being inherently rusted and broken. While Savarkar was of the former persuasion, Ambedkar was clearly of the latter. Because of this, it is clear that, though his putting pen to paper may have been specifically in response to the callousness of Hindu orthodoxy, his holding those views was quite independent of anything those individuals might have done.

He clearly sees the orthodoxy as a mere by product of a deep rooted ideological rot dating back to the Vedic period that cynically and successfully quashed all newcomers like Buddhism, Charvaka, etc for the purposes maintaining of Brahminical hegemony and perpetuating cultural degeneracy. He minces no words here and, though it is unfortunate that his modern day self proclaimed disciples include racists like Kancha Ilaiah and V.T Rajshekar, it is hardly surprising that they would have come to their hateful views from his writings.

Ambedkar may have come to the conclusion that the Aryan Invasion/Race Theory was false, and for that perhaps we may be grateful that his writings are not the racially charged drivel that his modern day, self proclaimed heirs produce. But a mere patriotic desire to maintain the modern Indian state and protect the Hindu community can hardly be seen as evidence of one’s adherence to Hindutva; by this logic, even Jawaharlal Nehru, despite his Communist-inspired Anglophilic contempt for Hindu culture, and his brazen minority appeasement, could be termed an adherent of Hindutva. So could even the most corrupt of Congress Hindu baiters, given that, without Hindu loyalty, they would have no constituency. Indeed, it is hardly surprising that, nowadays, those who most noisily assert their desire to uphold the Indian state and protect the Hindu populace are those who vehemently reject Hindutva as communalism, preferring instead to maintain India’s “secular fabric”, “composite culture”, and “pluralistic/tolerant tradition” that the Hindu nationalists have “hijacked.”

Perhaps one could technically lump Ambedkar with the Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and other Indic traditions that reject Vedic authority but accept India as a holy land. But, Ambedkar falls outside even this spectrum because he holds the Indian subcontinent in no special regard, and present a sterilized version of Buddhism purged of all Hindu influence. In contrast, despite rejecting Vedic authority, the other Indic traditions never rejected Hindu culture in its entirety. They accepted Hindu deities as their own, adopted Hindu stories and cultural practices, adapted Hindu vocabulary, and philosophical concepts, among other things. Hindu culture was influenced in turn, created an atmosphere of healthy, Dharmic cross-pollination.

Ambedkar, however, coldly rebuffed Hindu deities in his famous 22 vows, even though Buddhists have always revered them. He rejects Buddha’s being an incarnation of Vishnu, even though Buddhist Jatakas have no problem seeing Krishna as a previous incarnation of the Buddha. He rejects Hindu rituals even though Vedic yagna penetrated even the Shinto religion of Japan through Japanese Buddhism. Though the archaic Chinese name for India is Tianzhu, and the ancient Japanese name for India is Tenjiku, both names that indicate their reverence for India as a holy land, despite living half a continent away, Ambedkar holds no similar reverence for the actual subcontinent. His Buddhism is much more a social movement than a religious one; he has no time for philosophical musings or cultural romanticism but is so ardently focused on social reform that he rejects even key aspects of the Buddha’s teaching, like the Four Noble Truths, because they stand in the way of Dalit emancipation.

Though there is no other name for Ambedkar’s movement but Navayana Buddhism, it can hardly be termed Hindutva, for it is based on hatred of all things Hindu, a barrier that even Dayananda, the Vedic purist, did not cross. It is clearly a negative reaction to Hinduism rather than a positive quest for spiritual enlightenment, which every Dharmic tradition and subset covered under Savarkar’s definition, from the speculative Vedanta to the ritualistic Mimamsaka, from the divine love of the Bhakti movement to the meditative bliss of Shakyamuni, from the puritanical compassion of Mahavira to the harmonious animism of Indian tribals, has always been about. This reverence and humility is completely absent in Ambedkar’s worldview, and he makes no attempts to ignore it. Indeed, his anger, though it may spring from a righteous source, is more characteristic of a sarcastic Charvaka than a proud Hindu. Hindutva, despite the slanderous mudslinging of its detractors, is about Dharmic self-determination, not about perpetual resentment and caste warfare. As the Buddhist monk Jivaka, as quoted on Koenraad Elst’s “Who is a Hindu?” sadly asserts, “Ambedkar entered on his new religion with hate in his heart and his followers are still nourishing and fanning the flames of hate in the uneducated masses they lead.” There are enough problems with the Hindutva movement without attempting to co-opt Ambedkar’s can of worms.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that Ambedkar was anything less than a tireless social reformer, and a patriotic defender of modern India. However, Ambedkar clearly wanted nothing to do with Hindutva past what it could do to strengthen the modern Indian state through Hindu consolidation, and social reform. However, Hindutva is deeper than mere social justice and patriotism, and for that reason Ambedkar cannot accurately be labeled an adherent of Hindutva.

StPTBarnum

This post end up ‘softening’ Ambedkar for upper-class Indians but strengthens the demonizing of the ‘Hindu’ Society. The cure is worse than the disease.

To understand Ambedkar, you will need to talk to some Marathi friends, and ask them about Shakuntala Devi (the maths whiz) Wrangler Paranjpe and Ambedkar. No book writes (that I know) writes about this – but that is a part of Marathi history that few people know. For many reasons, I cannot reproduce it here – space being the biggest issue.

Firstly

Just like the Aryan Invasion Theory was a myth that the East India Company needed, the British Raj also needed the ‘Caste System’. Its creator was Herbert Hope Risley – one of the brains behind the Partition of Bengal.

Give caste system narrative as much contempt and attention as you will to Aryan Invasion Theory.

Secondly

Even today the caste system works on profession – without the religion bit. Gandhiji from a bania became a monk, who wanted no power. In the best tradition of Indian chatar-varnaashrama. Same case with JP Narayan, Vinoba Bhave. On the other hand, Nehru (arguably a Kashmiri Pandit) became very rajsik in his inclinations.

Third

Buddha himself recommended the chatar-varnashrama as essential to keep balance of power – instead of concentration of power. Refer to the Assalayana-Buddha dialogue.

Good research but bad hypothesis. You need a 2ndlook.

http://twitter.com/nativethoughts senthil

What is the eligibility of ambedkar in commenting about Vedas and our scriptures? Where did he study those? Did he study from original source? or from english translation?

Then how come is he an authority to comment upon vedas are other scriptures.. Even if we give him that right, it has to be his own personal views.. Why his personal views become a gospel for Hindutva people?

Why should we accept that what ambedkar told is unquestiobly right? Are we infested with abrahamic virus and lost the questioning ability?

The way aravindan projects ambedkar itself is perversive and subvertive.. There is no objective analysis.. only personification, and glorification..

Next, what is the background of ambedkar?

* His father was serving British Indian Army
* He was grown in a British Town.
* He studied in western education system, and pursued western higher studies.

So essentially he was a man, serving british interests, and moulded in british ways.. This itself is enough to scrutinize him from an indigenous perspective..

Its said that ambedkar called for breaking caste system? Did he come forward to break his own Mahar caste? Never.. he worked on to create a separate Mahar Regiment in the british army.. NOTE: Only for mahars.. NOT for other untouchables.. Yet his hypocrisy is NEVER even admitted by intellectuals..

Coming to the caste problem:
—————————–

Is there any proper indigenous study done on our social setup , either by independant indian government, or by any of the Hindutva Organisations? Never..

What we have till now is missionary documentation, and the documentation by british travellers..

So when there has been no study done on our society or its jathi setup, is it rational enough to pass derogoratory comments on it? This is just like branding a women “Whore” and then start calling for her killing.. the abrahamic faiths are good about it, and they call for destruction of caste.. but why is Hindutva brigades taking the same mantle?

Lets go in to the british documentation of different castes of india, at that time..

The books, “Castes & Tribes of Southern India” and the book “Castes and Tribes of Central India” are a good source to start with..

While they are NOT accurate enough, there is enough details for us to analyse..

In the “Castes & Tribes of Central India”, they have given detailed description of life styles of mahars, the role they had in the village..
And in the same book, the life style of brahmins had been given..

Even a normal brain would understand that they both are totally incompatible.. there is no wonder, that mahars and brahmins are untouchables.. There are so many other details that we can find in these books, like the Hereditary rights of mahars to serve as village policeman, to be the authority for settling village borders, etc.. these hereditary rights were confiscated from them, by the britishers and NOT by the brahmins..

Do the intellectuals in the CRI are open enough to discuss these?

The need of the hour is NOT to debate about caste system or vedas or smritis.. But to make the Hindutva people to be accountable for all their past activities..

Have the Hindutva vaadis really represented the real bharatheeya civilization? I say NO.. and is there any hindutva people ready for introspection and become answerable and accountable?

i wish someone answers this,this is the core point.Urbanisation is one way traffic,look at the heavy taxation the city of London levies on its citizens to take care of the sanitation and other troubles in the region.

Sarab

Senthil: Ambedkar in working for mahar group alone, is not hypocritical. Every group has to bring itself up, make itself socially relevant. To that extent, there is nothing wrong. To make him an icon of the country is where the problem lies. Besides, today’s dalit groups are being counterproductive in the sense that they are working with vested interests for power, instead of working on their groups’ self-awareness and restoration of social relevance and respect. Shortcuts never work in Hindu society, they erode credibility.

http://twitter.com/nativethoughts senthil

The main obstacles that i see among the Hindutva people is that they see the entire civilization, only through books.. as though, the civilization functioned strictly according to scriptures..

The reality is that the culture in every region evolved based on various factors, like climate, geography, the strategic location, and the nature of people groups.. have any hindutva people ever considered all these factors, while studying our history of civilization?

What we are seeing is rabid religious rousing, while the geographic and political administration lies still in westernised system..

Every village in our bharatheeya civilization is well planned and constructed based on agamas.. today, this traditional design pattern is totally rejected by the westernised alien constitution.. as a result, the current urbanisation policy is pushing creation of westernised towns and cities, by destroying our civilizational villages..

and ambedkar ( and other congress stooges ) are credited and eulogised for imposing this alien constitution on us..

Pls read my another blog post on how our society was integrated at village level ..

Actually after upanayana, lad was taken to gurukula. In fact “upanayana” itself means taking near (a guru). This is just a point to set record straight and nothing to do with anything else in the very cwell written article.

http://profile.yahoo.com/LMHPC6FB7FACDOBN7K6Q3LFBGU Sree, Koti, Ambi

Well written article. Brings out many struggles in the minds of Ambedkar, but he definitely had the right focus and diagnosis. Caste destroyed Hindu unity and was the greates blunder and should be done with. Just one technical point: Upanayana means bringing near or taking near (a guru). Typically it was after upanayana, lad is sent to gurukula for study. Looks like Ambedkar basically bought into traditional translation or interpretation of Gita. I don’t blame him though, because our traditional garbage is so deep and strong! Both verna and svadharma was misunderstood by our rank and files. The verna charactersitics are clearly stated in Gita and whoever has the corresponding trait belong to that respectiev verna. Every human has verna, like blood group; because every human has certain aptitudes and attitudes that sticks out. This is universal. Thus, avarneeya (not having verna) is an oxymoron. Nevertheless Hindu society gate keepers entertained it because they were oxymorons or were protecting a misunderstood concept in the name of tradition over underlying truth! Five blunders were done to Gita by our acharyas and those are simply repeated even in the modern translations, because the translators (even Western academicians) or modern gurus subscribe to one of the primary acharyas. Gita itself says that the essence was LOST during Arjuna’s time itself! Too bad he did not ask why, how and when it got lost? Not sure it ever made it back! Too bad Ambedkar is not here to read our “New Bhagavad-Gita”!

http://twitter.com/nativethoughts senthil

its not fair that you had deleted one of my comment, without any reason..

Utsav Saxena

Ambedkar was definitely a great Hindutvavaadi. Read his comments on the caste system among the Muslims of Indian subcontinent and there you will know how he really felt about caste. He believed the plight of the lower-caste could always be relieved by the actions of enlightened upper-caste and empowered lower-caste Hindus. Throughout history, all social emancipation movements for the low caste have been started by those among the high caste who saw the evil in it, going back to Buddha himself. He knew of the racial contempt the Ashraf had over Indians and that the lower-caste who was now Muslim had no chance of being treated equally there. Even today elite crust Pakistanis with internet access can be seen making disparaging comments towards Indians like “dirty black Hindus” (ignoring that their own 90% of the population is same color as us) and take pride in having Afghan/Turkish/Persian ancestry. Moreover Bangladesh genocide of 1971 is unprecedented caste massacre in Indian subcontinent, and it was not the Hindus doing it. Think about land reforms, Dalit quotas, etc, all these are possible in indigeneous Hindu India, see how Pakistan is still a feudal state with 2% Ashraf landlords controlling the masses of enslaved Hindu converts.

Another point I’d make is that Hindutva is not really about returning to Manu Smriti or Geeta or Vedas. It really is a nationalist struggle for a nation conquered by foreigners for 1000 years. In this context, Sanatan Dharma not only includes the Vedic-derived religions, but also Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism…even long-established Indianized versions of the Abrahamic religions like Christianity and Islam. In the South Asian Muslim community there is a great struggle ongoing with Deobandi/Salafi/Wahaabi Islam trying its hardest to beat Barelvi which is the syncretic Hindu version of Islam. Hindutva organizations should in fact try to make common ground with these bhumiputra Muslims as well who are doing their best to resist Arabization but do not have the Hindu nationalism pride in them yet to put up an effective front. Note nowadays Iranian Muslims refer to themselves as Parsee and don’t think the term should only be restricted to Zoroastrians. This is due to growth of Persian nationalism in post-Islamic Iran. Likewise we should do our best to bring our own Muslims to the point where there is no contradiction between being a Muslim spiritually and a Hindu nationally/culturally/politically.

bliss 192

Should Ambedkar’s criticism about the British Brahmins as an anti-Hindu, then what do you people think of the person who made such a statement as below?

//Come, be men! Kick out the priests who are always against progress, because they would never mend, their hearts would never become big. They are the offspring of centuries of superstition and tyranny. Root out priestcraft first. //

bliss 192

If Ambedkar’s questioning modern Hindu practices should make him anti-Hindu, then what should we call a person who make such statements as below:

//Come, be men! Kick out the priests who are always against progress, because they would never mend, their hearts would never become big. They are the offspring of centuries of superstition and tyranny. Root out priestcraft first. //